Lange v. Goulet.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1949 |
| Parties | LANGE v. GOULET. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On motion for New Trial from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.
Action by Paul Lange against Laurier Goulet to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when allegedly struck by defendant's automobile. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moves for a new trial.
Motion overruled.
Lessard & Delahanty and Thomas E. Delahanty, all of Lewiston, for plaintiff.
Edward J. Beauchamp, of Lewiston, for defendant.
Before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, MURCHIE, TOMPKINS, FELLOWS and MERRILL, JJ.
Defendant's motion for a new trial in this cause challenges a jury verdict for $1,500, returned in favor of a 73-year old plaintiff, slightly lame and somewhat hard of hearing, injured while walking on a cross-walk at an intersection of ways in broad daylight, when struck and knocked down, as he alleges, by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant. A light fall of snow was not sufficient to obscure vision.
The allegation of the motion that the damages are excessive has been waived. The sole issues are whether, on the record, the findings of the jury that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff was not, implicit in the verdict, were justified. They must be resolved within the established principle that the judgment of a court should not be substituted for that of a jury, based on evidence concerning which reasonable men may differ, Eaton v. Marcelle, 139 Me. 256, 29 A.2d 162. The burden rests on the defendant to show that the verdict is manifestly wrong. Searles v. Ross et al., 134 Me. 77, 181 A. 820.
The accident occurred at the intersection of Lisbon and Pine Streets in Lewiston. Traffic at the time was being controlled by lights operating in a 70-second cycle which permitted vehicular traffic on Lisbon Street to proceed during approximately 40 seconds of each cycle, and that on Pine Street to do so for 20 seconds, with two 5-second intervals for pedestrians. Lisbon Street measured a little less than 40 feet from curb to curb. When the plaintiff reached the curb from which he later stepped to make his crossing the lights were holding vehicles on Lisbon Street from entering the intersection. He waited until the cycle then in operation had been completed and started across that street when the vehicles on it were again stopped. He was roughly three-quarters of the way across when he fell, as the defendant asserts, or was struck, according to his own testimony. He was directly in the path the defendant would naturally follow in entering the intersection and turning to the right, as was his plan. The traffic light changed at that time and defendant's car moved forward very slowly, as is evidenced by his own testimony and the fact that he stopped almost at the time plaintiff landed on the ground.
On the disputed points as to whether the injuries resulted from a fall or impact with the motor vehicle and whether plaintiff was lying in front of defendant's car or partly under it when help reached him in a matter of seconds, the record carries clean-cut conflicts of testimony. The verdict indicates that the jury accepted the evidence given by the plaintiff and on his behalf on both points. The motion would be overruled on the authority of the cases heretofore cited if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial